Andy Beyer, Dutrow, DRF

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by CSC

Are you suggesting the figure makers are being disingenuous? Interesting argument, if a player uses a beyer speed figure and the original figure is inaccurate when adjusted at a later date, it can be considered no different than receiving wrong information when buying a stock. Who's liable then?

I'm not suggesting that at all and I believe it to be the opposite. I think that they have every intention of and make every attempt at being accurate. That's what I do like about them going back and making adjustments. I don't know if it's being lost here in translation but my point wasn't specifically tied only to This One's for Phil's case. What I'm saying is that it kinda makes the argument weaker when you say that a figure out of whack because it's 20 points higher than normal when there is a chance that later on down the line, the number will be adjusted and not be so out of line.

To answer Danzig's question, I don't know how often they get adjusted. I do remember the case with Lava Man a few years ago and his number from the Californian was adjusted several times, appearing in a couple of subsequent pp's with different numbers.

I've always taken numbers from 2yos and 3yos in the spring with a grain of salt. First, trainers are often adding new dimensions to each race so the horse is attempting something he's never done before. Whether that be two-turns, added distance, shipping and racing, etc. With so many new variables thrown into the mix, I think it's very difficult to project what a horse should do in a given situation that he's never tried before. A good example would be a horse that's running in two-turn races because they are trying to get him to the TC and say he's running consistent figures in the 80's then when returned to one-turn, he puts up a 105. That figure seems out of whack but it could be that if he had been running one-turn races the entire time, he might have been closer to that 105 and nobody would have looked twice at it. You also have horses at different stages of their development and trainers with different goals and objectives in a race. For instance, because of his win in the Hollywood Futurity, Baffert knows he's pretty much assured a spot in the Derby based on earnings with Pioneerof the Nile. With that in mind, he can work more on getting the horse closer and closer to his goal with each race. But take a horse like Papa Clem, who just ran second to Pioneer last weekend. He HAS to win a big race soon in order to get the earnings. So his trainer might tighten him up a little bit more than Baffert will Pioneer because they have totally different goals for the race. You might look and say that Pioneer is 10 points better than Papa Clem but if PC is at 90% for their next meeting and Pioneer is at 75%, it would be logical to not expect the difference between them to be 10 points so if Pioneer beats him by a neck, you can't look at their previous figures and say what the figure should be. Likewise, you can't take a figure earned today in a sprint and then look at the subsequent form of the horses and then downgrade today's race. For example, if horse A runs a 110, horse B runs a 106, and horse C runs a 100......then next time out in a route, horse A runs a 94, horse B runs a 92, and horse C runs a 90......perhaps none of them are good routers but that doesn't mean you should downgrade what they did in the sprint.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I'm not suggesting that at all and I believe it to be the opposite. I think that they have every intention of and make every attempt at being accurate. That's what I do like about them going back and making adjustments. I don't know if it's being lost here in translation but my point wasn't specifically tied only to This One's for Phil's case. What I'm saying is that it kinda makes the argument weaker when you say that a figure out of whack because it's 20 points higher than normal when there is a chance that later on down the line, the number will be adjusted and not be so out of line.

To answer Danzig's question, I don't know how often they get adjusted. I do remember the case with Lava Man a few years ago and his number from the Californian was adjusted several times, appearing in a couple of subsequent pp's with different numbers.

I've always taken numbers from 2yos and 3yos in the spring with a grain of salt. First, trainers are often adding new dimensions to each race so the horse is attempting something he's never done before. Whether that be two-turns, added distance, shipping and racing, etc. With so many new variables thrown into the mix, I think it's very difficult to project what a horse should do in a given situation that he's never tried before. A good example would be a horse that's running in two-turn races because they are trying to get him to the TC and say he's running consistent figures in the 80's then when returned to one-turn, he puts up a 105. That figure seems out of whack but it could be that if he had been running one-turn races the entire time, he might have been closer to that 105 and nobody would have looked twice at it. You also have horses at different stages of their development and trainers with different goals and objectives in a race. For instance, because of his win in the Hollywood Futurity, Baffert knows he's pretty much assured a spot in the Derby based on earnings with Pioneerof the Nile. With that in mind, he can work more on getting the horse closer and closer to his goal with each race. But take a horse like Papa Clem, who just ran second to Pioneer last weekend. He HAS to win a big race soon in order to get the earnings. So his trainer might tighten him up a little bit more than Baffert will Pioneer because they have totally different goals for the race. You might look and say that Pioneer is 10 points better than Papa Clem but if PC is at 90% for their next meeting and Pioneer is at 75%, it would be logical to not expect the difference between them to be 10 points so if Pioneer beats him by a neck, you can't look at their previous figures and say what the figure should be. Likewise, you can't take a figure earned today in a sprint and then look at the subsequent form of the horses and then downgrade today's race. For example, if horse A runs a 110, horse B runs a 106, and horse C runs a 100......then next time out in a route, horse A runs a 94, horse B runs a 92, and horse C runs a 90......perhaps none of them are good routers but that doesn't mean you should downgrade what they did in the sprint.

Alot of points in your post, it will be interesting to see if Phil can indeed follow up his next race with a simular number or if this was a one off.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So it is better to have an inaccurate number? Adjusting the number gives me the appearance them trying to get the most accurate info and admitting that the original number may have been flawed. The idea that Beyer is fudging numbers for ""insiders" is laughable.

And it isnt as though his was the only number that was unusually high.
This one is for Phil got a 121 equibase number after never nearing 100 before. Perhaps someone could get the sheet number also?

I'm not sure how often numbers are adjusted after they have been published for public use, all I know is I'm not happy with the thought that information that you thought was accurate wasn't when a bet was made. Obcourse accurate information is better in the long run, just how it was arrived at a later date is the question that puzzles me.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by CSC

I'm not sure how often numbers are adjusted after they have been published for public use, all I know is I'm not happy with the thought that information that you thought was accurate wasn't when a bet was made. Obcourse accurate information is better in the long run, just how it was arrived at a later date is the question that puzzles me.

don't they generally adjust before a horses next race?

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Danzig

don't they generally adjust before a horses next race?

I've seen horses when I have used the original beyer that have been adjusted at a later date when I have looked at the same horse for a different race. I wish I could cite an example here to further my point but can't at the moment. Maybe someone else can answer that, I'm not sure.

By the way, I think we've all questioned a figure here & there when handicapping, it's all part of the process. At times you can even use that to your advantage.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by CSC

I'm not sure how often numbers are adjusted after they have been published for public use, all I know is I'm not happy with the thought that information that you thought was accurate wasn't when a bet was made. Obcourse accurate information is better in the long run, just how it was arrived at a later date is the question that puzzles me.

If the information was the actual time of the race or fractions or other factual info I could see your point.

[SniperSB23]

The brisnet figures which are not adjusted had these figures for the horse:

111
86
85
83
92
82
89
64
75

Keep in mind that for the brisnets each point equals a length. So the brisnet's suggest that the horse improved by 19 lengths off its' career best or 30+ Beyer points. So anyone that thinks Beyer is fixing this needs to call out the brisnet computer as well.